What are the differences between these two snubbies from S&W? My cousin who is not into shooting (but is sympathetic to the cause) asked for advice regarding a small handgun for self defense. My suggestion is either a S&W 638 or 642 revolver because of their size and caliber. There are videos and reviews out there which discuss both but there seem to be some discrepancies in the descriptions so I'm not sure what to believe. A little help from those of you in the know would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

They are basically identical besides the 638 having a shrouded hammer so you can shoot it double action or you can cock the hammer back and shoot single action if you want. The 642 has no hammer and double action only.

The 642 is DAO or Double Action Only with an enclosed internal hammer where as the 638 has a shrouded hammer that can be manually cocked as the top of the hammer spur is exposed just enough to be manipulated by hand & fired single action as well as double action. I wouldn’t recommend the 638 to someone with cursory experience as their introduction to the J Frame revolver.

I would concur that a lightweight J frame is not a great introductory handgun. A 640 or a Ruger SP101 would be easier for them to shoot and become proficient with. A lightweight J frame is setting them up to fail (IMHO).

A full size revolver would be a better solution for a first gun. If it’s for an eventual CCW piece maybe a Glock 43 / S&W Shield?

Just some well intended advice.

I concur with the caution expressed above re: an Airweight snubby like a 638 or 642 as a first gun - a medium-framed service-sized revolver would be a better starting-point (if not some sort of smaller semi-auto, frankly).

I’ve owned a 638 and currently own a 642 and use same as a daily pocket-carry gun in a pocket holster. Both guns serve well in that regard. As stated above, the 638 has a shrouded hammer vs. the fully-enclosed hammer of the 642. A pocket-carry gun will gather lots of lint (even when in an applicable pocket holster) - the hammer “channel” on my 638 was always quite the little lint-trap. Was never an issue, just something to be swabbed-out with a Q-tip from time to time.

I do a lot of full-size revolver shooting these days, and my 642 shooting has absolutely improved as a result. An Airweight J-frame is just not an ideal beginner’s gun IMO.

I'm a fan of S&W revolvers, but if ammo cost is an issue with your cousin, .38 Special can be expensive and a little more difficult to find.

He may want to consider a Ruger SP101 or LCR in 9mm for more affordable ammo.

For plinking, a .22LR revolver is a great choice.

For home defense (and if .38 Special and/or .357 Magnum is OK), a 4" steel frame K frame is a good way to go. Model 10, 13, 15, 19, 64, 65, 66, etc.

The smaller the gun, the snappier the recoil. May not be the best choice for a non-shooter. I would suggest taking him to a range where you can rent some different guns and see what fits and what he likes. It depends on what he really wants it for. If he is going to carry it, then smaller might be ok after some practice. If it is a home defense weapon, what difference does the size make?

I use a 642 for pocket carry every now and then. I like that it doesn’t have the exposed hammer. I wouldn’t really recommend it for a new shooter though. It isn’t the most pleasant thing to shoot at the range.

The key is wadcutter ammo - if you can find any

I went through a similar process about a year ago. I have a 360J (scandium-framed, steel cylinder, .38+P with exposed hammer), which I love, but had a situation that resulted in a need to carry a backup J-Frame in a manner that could cause the hammer of the 360 to snag on the draw. Not wanting to cut up my favorite snubby (I sometimes carry that gun in situations where it's my only gun, and I like the SA option in those situations), I started shopping around for something with a bobbed or internal hammer.

I looked around at options, and considered the 340, the 442/642, and the 438/638. I just couldn't get over the ugly on the 438/638, and had concerns about lint and dust getting into the hammer channel. I also decided that for use as a BUG, SA wasn't really necessary, so the negatives outweighed the positives on that design. I ruled out the 340 due to price, and the fact that I really didn't feel the need for .357 Mag in an airweight (I feel even more strongly about that now after my brief exerience with the 642). That left the Centennials (432/642). One cool thing about those is that they're one of the few S&W revolver options left that is available without the stupid internal lock. I ultimately ended up with a nice (I thought) used no-lock 642, which unfortunately turned out to have a cracked frame.

The gun shop thankfully took that one back, and suffering from a newly acquired (probably irrational) fear of alloy frames, I forked over another $400 and went home with an all stainless 640 Pro (Internal hammer .357 Magnum). It's an outrageously expensive J-Frame, but the sights are excellent, it's stronger than aluminum, and the extra mass makes .357 reasonably comfortable to shoot...it's a bit harsher than .38+P, but not bad enough that it hurts like the airweight guns. With my hand geometry, I find the 640 more confortable to shoot in .357 Mag than most small 9mm autos, even...the P365 in particular tore up my trigger finger. YMMV of course.

The trigger on my 640 is quite good. I actually just shot it alongside my SP101 yesterday, and noted that the SP101's pull starts out light and gradually becomes heavier up until the break. The 640's trigger is smooth and consistent all the way through the break. Under most circumstances, I find I get better results on target with a DA gun if I just pull straight through the trigger in one smooth motion rather than trying to stop at the "wall" and stage it for a precise, timed break. The trigger on this gun is nice, because if you pull straight-through, you don't even feel a "wall" prior to the break...but it's also pretty easy to stage if you really want to. Staging is accomplished by geometry, though...just pausing your pull at a natrual-feeling point in the travel...not by a change in feel of the trigger. It's the best of both worlds, and I don't really feel like I'm giving anything up by not having an exposed hammer, as I can still reliaby simulate an SA shot in the rare occasion that I might want to. All that to say, I'm glad I went with the 640 over the 638.

I'd agree with the others that if your buddy isn't an experienced shooter, then a snubby revolver may have a pretty steep learning curve. However, if he's dead set on it, there are some advantages. They're simple, easy to operate and maintain, and easy to safely master the administrative handling characteristics (which is huge for a novive shooter). Also, he's more likely to actually carry a tiny airweight J-frame than a larger, bulkier auto that will likely get left at home in a drawer most of the time. If he's willing to put the time in and train on it so that he can actually hit what he's aiming at, it can be a really good option for someone who doesn't want to alter their wardrobe and lifestyle to accomodate carrying a bigger gun.

ETA: Here are a few photos and weights, just for comparison. L to R: Alloy-Framed 360J, 3" SP101, and 640 Pro. Sorry, I don't have a 638 to compare.

Or get a steel j frame.



Model 49

I carried a M-38 from 83 to 2019. Sent it in for service due to some mechanical issues and Smith said they no longer make the parts needed and gave me the olde, "at the end of its service life." line.

They replaced it with a 642 which I very much enjoy. The enclosed hammer makes it far less susceptible to catching debris and lint. I do miss my Bodyguard though.

I have the 642, and have a bad tendency to "over trigger" it, pulling shots to the right. I don't have that issue on my Tarus snubbie, and I think that being able to see the trigger is one of the big differences that helps (trigger scale is pretty close between them).

The 642 will have a better DA trigger pull than the 638.

Sooner or later I'll send my 640 and 642 to Clark Customs for a full action job. Dry fired one of theirs at the NRA show in 2019 and it was very smooth and lighter than stock.

Maybe S&W Performance Center could do similar. Have to consider that.

Drop in the Apex kit and polish the rebound slide. I did it to my 649. Night and day.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Sooner or later I'll send my 640 and 642 to Clark Customs for a full action job. Dry fired one of theirs at the NRA show in 2019 and it was very smooth and lighter than stock.

Maybe S&W Performance Center could do similar. Have to consider that.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Sooner or later I'll send my 640 and 642 to Clark Customs for a full action job. Dry fired one of theirs at the NRA show in 2019 and it was very smooth and lighter than stock.

Maybe S&W Performance Center could do similar. Have to consider that.

NO The Performance Center will not do anywhere near as good a job as Clark

There is an old saying 38 snubbies ( this goes double for air weights) are experts guns.
I emphasize with newer shooter a simple reality regardless (almost) of caliber, the smaller the gun the harder to shoot. Not only for accuracy but also manipulations like reloading and on autos the various controls ( slide stop mag release even the spare mag itself) are smaller and harder to use.
If a small revolver is considered an option I strongly encourage an all steel one. The difference in carry comfort is minimal but the improvement in handling while firing is substantial

I totally agree that a NON-Shooter should not be introduced to the shooting sports with an AirWeight J-frame 38 Special.

When teaching, I always start Novice shooters off with a Smith & Wesson K22 Masterpiece as their first experience. This one that I use is just about to turn 70 years old



You want no flinching, no recoil and positive reinforcement when they actually make holes in their first target. If they do good, I move them up to light load 38 wadcutters in a K38 Masterpiece

In my College days I used to be an RSO at my Uncle's range and gunshop. While some guys thought it was funny to hand a 44 Magnum to the girlfriend that had never fired anything before, it simply turned them off to shooting

Before there is a purchase, take your Cousin shooting. If you do not have firearms that are good choices for a novice, take him or her to a range that does rentals.

Let your cousin get a few hundred rounds downrange before money is spent on a firearm

Thanks for all your responses. Like most of you, I've been shooting since I was really young and I'm pretty much in agreement with almost everything posted. I didn't want to muddle my initial post with tons of info but there is one thing I should have said but neglected. My cousin is a woman in her 50s who is looking for a handgun to have for home self defense, while underway for her profession, when going shopping, out for a walk in the woods, etc. It's actually her husband who knows I'm really into handguns who asked me for a suggestion for her. They are 'professionally" employed people who live in a pretty rural area and are predominately into hunting rifles and shotguns but only have a couple of handguns (Ruger P89 and Ruger Mark II 22). My cousin has fired the Mark II, but as stated earlier is not "into" guns per se. I'll suggest to her that she should shoot it more to gain confidence and proficiency with a handgun. But to the nub of the matter, she wants a self defense piece. PERIOD. So my suggestion for either the 638 or 642 is strictly for that reason: so she feels secure when her hubby isn't home or when she is out and about. IMO, while a short barrel revolver wouldn't be my personal choice (I carry semi autos but am proficient with them), it would be great for a novice. These small S&Ws don't have the sight systems for being a marksman. Let's face it, they are more for up close "point and shoot" scenarios.

While I appreciate all the responses I actually asked about the differences between the 638 and 642 (see my initial post). Since yesterday I found out one important thing. The pic of the 638 I saw was actually a pic of a 642 which was misrepresented by the author!! I thought to myself: "why does the 638 in this pic look exactly like the 642 in that pic?" OK, that problem is now solved.

One further question besides my original question in the first post: Are both the 638 an 642 rated for +P ammo?